When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

A person who intends to divert a mountainous district shall obtain permission from the head of the relevant forest agency, etc. in accordance with the classification of the types, areas, etc. of the mountainous district prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the same shall also apply to any change

Nevertheless, from around September 2014 to November 2014, the Defendant was performing construction works with permission to convert mountainous districts for the purpose of creation of E from 271,387 square meters of forests and fields in the 18 lots of forests and fields outside the Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and around 271,387 square meters of land, and used F, G, and H 6,785 square meters of forests and fields adjoining the above permitted land to convert mountainous districts without obtaining permission to divert mountainous districts by cutting the boundary of the above permitted land by using equipment, such as diggings, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Each investigation report;

1. Documents related to the official documents and supervision service contracts of the medical service group;

1. The survey report on the actual situation of the illegal mountainous district, the document related to the application for approval of a plan, and the document related to the approval [the defendant did not recognize that the defendant did not use the forest 6,785 square meters as it invadeds on the boundary because he/she trusted the boundary survey of the consulting company and carried out construction;

The argument is asserted.

In light of the following: (a) the Defendant neglected to perform the duty of supervision and supervision as an actual operator of the E development project and the actual construction site; (b) not only neglected to perform the duty of supervision and supervision, but also did not include the part of the boundary survey in the service agreement with the consulting company, in addition to the current status survey; (c) was under the process of the authorization and permission, by conducting a boundary survey before construction; and (d) was dedicated to mountainous district to prevent civil petitions arising from the invasion of boundary; and (e) the Defendant had dolus negligence on the fact that the Defendant committed a violation of the originally permitted boundary and used the mountainous district to divert the mountainous district.

[Judgment of the court below]

Application of Statutes

1..